EVE Information Portal

I see that as a drawback for smaller groups wishing to take and hold sov.
A large group will more easily cover multiple structures coming out of RF whereas a small group is going to find defending multiple positions much more difficult.

My reasons for wanting to see the Entosis module restricted to certain hulls (Battle cruisers or Command ships) is for the smaller groups. If 4 or 5 ceptors can shoot around and RF all your sov in a few mins, then defending it once it comes out of RF is that much harder.
If the group wanting to take sov from you has to risk a fleet to RF (1 command ship RFing with Entosis is gonna die fast) it brings more content (fights) than having to chase off a few ceptors.


- - - - - - - - - - -
The idea of timers is not all that bad but like everything in life, the best intentions can become void if something comes up. Picking the timer for a small group who feel they can cover a TZ well enough to protect their assets, may well blow up in their face (literally) if key members or enough line members have exams at school or are required to do overtime or the wife (or husband) throws a tizzy and shuts off your computer.
The initial RFing efforts with Entosis need to mean something. It should generate conflict, as much as protecting an R64, if not more.

I also feel there should be no fatigue if you are using jump bridges in your own sov.
Yes this will help the larger groups quickly deploy to save their sov but that same benefit goes to smaller groups as well. If we end up with 4 or 5 structures coming out close together and can freely use a jump bridge to move from one to the other, we as a small group stand more chance of holding our sov than we would if we had to move by gates and risk gate camps setup by those wanting our sov. I'm happy to fight an enemy that is trying to RF a station we own but having to fight through gate camps to get there is going to make it much harder for small groups.

- - - - - - - - -
People are asking for benefits to holding sov - No fatigue in your sov space is a big incentive.

It would have to have a jump limit, say 4 or 5 jumps free then you start accruing fatigue at normal rates.
It could also be tied to your "home system", so as long as you are using jump bridges owned by your alliance within the region of your home system you get no fatigue for the 1st X amount of jumps. Outside your home region you get fatigue as usual.

So out of all of this is great for what you all are doing but you are going to ruin the dreads and make them useless. Does this mean your going to remove them too? Or are they the next ship your going to be revamping so they are more usefull, faster to move, and get into warp, faster locking time, jump fatigue reduction and lower the siege module duration and cost. And in doing so we would need to lock more targets while in siege.

I would like to see how this goes or just turn them into dread Hulks but you would have to create capital strip miners and include siege bonus for them...

Let's pretend CCP does not allow frigates or T3 cruisers to fit or even carry in cargo this module. What are the other issues with just the module?

In regards to null sov. Would it be enough of an incentive if the best level 4 mission agent or high sec incursion farming was still not as good as the worst null system for income?

I'm just trying to get the basic vibe on the issue from everyone.

What we need is for the reward to be higher than in highsec (not by a huge amount, simple have it be on par with 0.0 level 4 missions) and to be able to host a corp/alliance in one system, 10 people is simply not enough.

If CCP wants to encourage actual fights, then allowing an interceptor or nullified ship to be able to flip things will only cause frustration and not lead to many kills. Sure, they might trigger some timers, but it is highly unlikely that the aggressing group would show up to actually flip it.

It would be impossible to realistically code in a varying time system that actually works.

Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.

Humour me, imagine it is (and I've already stated ideas that would make it possible earlier in the thread)

Now your victims of dickery 24/7 versus being able to inflict it on others only during their 4hr time periods unless you downscale your alliance or number of systems.

So now what's the problem with ceptors?

Where is the incentive to make players want to do that job? I agree that 4 hours is too narrow and one flat time frame does not scale, but the core of Eve is social dynamic between individuals and attempting to break that core up with no carrots will not help Eve Online.